The numbers game
After hearing that US President Bush yesterday paid a visit to Iraq, unannounced, and to a remote location - most of the Anbar Province is desert - unlike the troops he sends to the front, and reading how the American press have treated the British withdrawal from the centre of Basra unfavourably, I was prompted to review the casualty figures as published by the UK Ministry of Defence.
As of mid-August 2007, the number of British military casualties (i.e. killed) is on course to be the highest in a calendar year since - and including - the year of the war itself, 2003.
Furthermore, this year, 2007, is already the most costly for 'seriously injured' casualties.
[both stats come from this MOD single sheet]
And turning to Afghanistan,
The number of British military casualties is also on course to be the highest in a calendar year since - and including - 2001, when troops were first sent in.
And, as with Iraq, this year, 2007, is already the most costly for 'seriously injured' casualties.
[both stats come from this MOD single sheet]
These facts - that the rate of casualties is higher than ever - do not figure very highly when the Government reports on progress in these countries. I wonder why.
Note also that the term wounded has been replaced by injured. You can be injured at work, or playing sports, or doing DIY at home. Wounded is what you get on the battlefield, but that is too honest a word to use. Nowadays the wounded are simply referred to as being injured. It's one of those many subtle ways in which we're being told not only what to think, but how to think.
So far, 238 military have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 276 have been seriously wounded*. This doesn't count those who have been less seriously injured (i.e. just plain wounded), or mentally scarred. There will be many, many more of those.
The only comparable military operation in recent decades has been the Falklands, which was over within a couple of months, objective accomplished, with 258 killed and 777 wounded. Very soon, in all likelihood before Christmas, the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will prove to be the most costly in British military terms since the Korean war over half a century ago.
We fought in the Korean War after North Korea invaded South Korea. We fought in the South Atlantic after Argentina invaded the Falklands. We are fighting in Iraq because we started a pre-emptive war, and we're still there 4 years later. Spot the difference.
*this in itself is testament to the good work done saving lives. In wars gone by, the number of wounded was many time higher than those killed in action; these days the ability to save lives in the battlefield has greatly improved, although we mustn't forget this means people having to see out the rest of their lives badly wounded, a not particularly satisfactory outcome.
As of mid-August 2007, the number of British military casualties (i.e. killed) is on course to be the highest in a calendar year since - and including - the year of the war itself, 2003.
Furthermore, this year, 2007, is already the most costly for 'seriously injured' casualties.
[both stats come from this MOD single sheet]
And turning to Afghanistan,
The number of British military casualties is also on course to be the highest in a calendar year since - and including - 2001, when troops were first sent in.
And, as with Iraq, this year, 2007, is already the most costly for 'seriously injured' casualties.
[both stats come from this MOD single sheet]
These facts - that the rate of casualties is higher than ever - do not figure very highly when the Government reports on progress in these countries. I wonder why.
Note also that the term wounded has been replaced by injured. You can be injured at work, or playing sports, or doing DIY at home. Wounded is what you get on the battlefield, but that is too honest a word to use. Nowadays the wounded are simply referred to as being injured. It's one of those many subtle ways in which we're being told not only what to think, but how to think.
So far, 238 military have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 276 have been seriously wounded*. This doesn't count those who have been less seriously injured (i.e. just plain wounded), or mentally scarred. There will be many, many more of those.
The only comparable military operation in recent decades has been the Falklands, which was over within a couple of months, objective accomplished, with 258 killed and 777 wounded. Very soon, in all likelihood before Christmas, the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will prove to be the most costly in British military terms since the Korean war over half a century ago.
We fought in the Korean War after North Korea invaded South Korea. We fought in the South Atlantic after Argentina invaded the Falklands. We are fighting in Iraq because we started a pre-emptive war, and we're still there 4 years later. Spot the difference.
*this in itself is testament to the good work done saving lives. In wars gone by, the number of wounded was many time higher than those killed in action; these days the ability to save lives in the battlefield has greatly improved, although we mustn't forget this means people having to see out the rest of their lives badly wounded, a not particularly satisfactory outcome.
posted by Pebbles at 8:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home